Protocol-08 (and status of Defs-04 and Rationale-06)

[Vint Cerf]

thanks Eric!

This looks like a pretty complete list of options. Now if we can just  
summarize arguments for/against each case to help the WG reach  
consensus.

v

NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Dec 7, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Vint,
>
> Assuming for the moment that the "forbid in protocol" position is  
> useful, there is:
>
> 4a. forbid at protocol level the mixing of Eastern Arabic-Indic,  
> Arabic-Indic digits, within a label, which actually are confusable,  
> that is, not 4, 5, and 6).
>
> My view is 3, but the weakest correct position of the "confusable"  
> and "in protocol" case that does not rely upon the IM bugs that map  
> code points in the U+06xx range to the 0x3x range is 4.
>
> 4b, for completeness, orbid at protocol level the mixing of Eastern  
> Arabic-Indic, Arabic-Indic digits, within a label, even those which  
> are not confusable, that is including 4, 5, and 6.
>
> The "unnecessary", "culturally awkward" or "ugly" and "in protocol"  
> case is:
>
> 5. forbid at protocol level the mixing of Latin and Eastern Arabic- 
> Indic and Latin and Arabic-Indic digits.
>
> The alternate justification is the IM mapping in some applications  
> being non-invertable, that is, some code point other than 0x3x is  
> mapped to 0x3x.
>
> The union of 4a and 4b and 5 "in protocol" are 1.
>
> Eric

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081208/7f988839/attachment.htm